I don't want to hijack the old topic with this. Thought this might be a better place. Said so far:

Dzsono: "Didn't you think it was weird that there was a pseudo-love story between the main character and your avatar (I'm crap with names) in Primordia? I mean, they're robots...."

Starmaker: "There wasn't one. As for why Crispin courted Sidekick Factorbuilt - rule of funny. Robots imitating human social conventions are supposed to be absurdly funny, because these conventions are completely ridiculous when viewed from outside.

Since personalities are programmable, Crispin's character is still more realistic than eg. Frankenstein's monster. Humans in Primordia developed a lot of tech for entertainment, from microbots and submersibles to Arbiter and Steeple; there's one liquid-dispensing robot in Metropol whose internal tag is "beerbot". So it's not inconceivable that AIs were set up or evolved to favor imitating humans."

My response: I disagree about there not being a "love story". Crispin asks Horatio why he feels compelled to go back, etc, all hinting that his actions are governed by more than just logic. Surely this is hinting at romantic feelings. Crispin and the torchlight robot also fall under this vague umbrella of romanticism, but to what ends does a robot have this capability? This is why I think that robots evolving to have more complex emotions is unlikely, as there is no evolutionary imperative to do so. Indeed, it's a needless additional consumption of energy to have this subsystem running in a world so low on power. It would harm chances of survival.

I do, however, think it's very likely that robots were programmed to behave like humans. I mean, we're trying to do this already, aren't we? Humans can't interact very well with computers on their own terms, so AI is geared towards a more human-like interaction. Plus there's that fascination we have with creating physically humanoid automatons...

From the interview I did with Tap Repeatedly: A commentary track says basically the same thing after the Crispin/Sidekick kiss.

That said, I don't think Horatio and Clarity's relationship is romantic. It starts as mutual respect, and it softens into something like friendship as they see their respective vulnerabilities. I do think they would make good companions for each other, but Horatio doesn't seem very interested in romance, at least at the time we see him. Clarity might have a tiny bit of a crush on Horatio because he's the only competent robot she's seen in ages, but even there I don't think it's romantic.

That said, it's inevitable in a story where you have a leading guy and a leading girl that the audience will view it as a romance!

Occam called, he complimented your beard.

Wikipedia's article is garbage (although you can try to salvage something from it or provide your own definition), so I'm going to define romantic love around this:
- affinity
- exclusivity
- ritualized behavior
- overappreciation
- sexual attraction
- specific chemical reaction

Of those, the last two are not applicable to robots, the preceding three do not apply to Horatio and Clarity, and the first one absent everything else is just called friendship. It's "not just about the power core" anymore because killing friends is not okay - it's a line beyond which continued avoidance of conflict is (logically) harmful and impractical. To quote a recent Cracked article: - exclusivity
- ritualized behavior
- overappreciation
All there.

As to what ends: for the lulz. Humans argued cases before a robot judge as a means of entertainment, and they had a robot priest managing religions ceremonies most likely for the same reason. Meatsacks love exalting specific meatsack peculiarities as Universal Human Virtues. "Can a machine love?" is an existing pop culture meme, like a libarts version of the Turing test; it's already a benchmark of excellence in AI design. We're talking robots here! There are no "emotions", there's just the AI. Everything is just a factor in the utility function. And complex AIs are known IRL and shown in the game to be better. This is why Horatio accomplishes so much during the course of the game: because, even lacking claws that shoot lasers, he has advanced intellect (your intellect, in fact, plus a math co-processor) and MetroMind does not. There's strong scientific evidence that altruism is an evolutionary advantage in humans. Plus, robot AI interpretation has more degrees of freedom than human evolution, because an AI can just be badly designed so much that it veers off to some crazy attractor or destroys itself in a blaze of logic. Yes, absolutely. This is why I find it quite realistic that only one city of four (Civitas) used robots communicating via nonhuman interfaces (wireless binary signals instead of human speech). The Legionbuilts are more practically designed, but Metropolitans seriously put a moving jaw on a war machine! They... kind of didn't. Clarity and Charity were built by Arbiter to resemble the anthropomorphic allegory of justice after humans went extinct, and the gender of other robots does not correlate to anything. So while there are robots designed to resemble humans (androids and gynoids) and perform human-specific tasks (airship maintenance), robot "gender" is more of a grammatical construct which is consequence of personhood (which was apparently unintentional on the part of humans).

As for sexbots - none are shown... however... now that I think of it... that gray android does look like Fabio with flimsy faux-organic skin off. You're welcome.

Is it possible, as the writer for the game, that you are completely wrong? ;)

In any case, you must be quite proud that your work has people discussing/thinking about the game long after the credits have rolled. Surely it's a better measure of success than selling as many units as a triple A title. I'm pretty sure that none of Jimi Hendrix's singles made it to #1, yet even non-musicians are aware of his contributions to music more than 40 years later. Still, money is always nice, isn't it? Um, what? The beard that makes the fewest assumptions is the best beard?

Anyway, I feel a bit sheepish giving such a short response, but what escaped me was your overall thesis in your response... or maybe no such thing was intended?

As in, you're not using the razor. ??? Fine, here's a list:

> Didn't you think it was weird that there was a pseudo-love story between the main character and your avatar

1. Reciprocated affinity without a bunch of impractical, depreciating, and illogical restrictions (see above list) is called friendship.

1A. By thinking "it's romantic love, only without exclusivity, ritualized behavior, and overappreciation", you're not using the razor.

1B for extra credit. "Didn't you think it was weird that there was a pseudo-love story " - Yudkowsky calls this "I notice that I am confused", as in, "I am likely to have overlooked a simple explanation".

> Crispin asks Horatio why he feels compelled to go back, etc, all hinting that his actions are governed by more than just logic. Surely this is hinting at romantic feelings.

2. Dealing out Kantian vengeance or rational (preventative) punishment is not contingent on romantic attraction to the wronged party.

> Crispin and the torchlight robot also fall under this vague umbrella of romanticism

3. Crispin and the floater play out the "human romantic attraction" scenario, qualifying for all criteria for romantic love that are applicable to robots (see list). Nothing vague about it.

> but to what ends does a robot have this capability?

4. Emulating humans shows up in the utility function because both Primordian and Earth humans are cultural weirdos.

> This is why I think that robots evolving to have more complex emotions is unlikely, as there is no evolutionary imperative to do so.

5. Robotic behavior is governed by a utility function ("decision matrices"). Sometimes, those functions produce stupid results because of the way they are set up. Metropol is dying because MetroMind is stupid.

> Indeed, it's a needless additional consumption of energy to have this subsystem running in a world so low on power. It would harm chances of survival.

5A. Having an additional factor in your utility function does not require additional energy per se - however, the behavior this additional factor incentivizes might. But altruism is, both in Primordia and IRL, an advantage where long-term survival is concerned.

> I do, however, think it's very likely that robots were programmed to behave like humans. I mean, we're trying to do this already, aren't we?

6. Humans Are Weird: Electric Boogaloo. However - while romantic love is very clearly tacked on, friendship is shown to be, as EFL would say, a logical compulsion: doing whatever it is that you're doing is easier with reliable help.

AJ: If it doesn’t give too much away about the story, why did humans in the world build robots with gender?

7. The interviewer's question is charged and not entirely correct [explanation].

Ah yes, I get the Occam reference now; obvious in hindsight :) By referring to the love story as pseudo, I was trying to acknowledge (without knowing specifically at the time) that not all the boxes were being ticked according to your definition. Doesn't this definition forever exclude robots from being able to love? Is this your position? In Primordia, are the robots capable of love, but just don't meet the requirements in this instance?

I suppose it's worth asking if your definition of love is descriptive or prescriptive? It would help me understand where you're coming from.

I also can't shake the feeling that if human characters played Horatio (Horus, *gold star for remembering!*) and Clarity then it would be more readily interpreted as a romantic aside. We often see this in other stories, films and games, where not all boxes are ticked, either because the love is not exclusive (to pick one) or because the relationship is not explored to the fullest.

For sure, as Starmaker often points out. I'm sometimes wrong even about my own motivations, due to forgetfulness and self-deception! It makes me enormously happy. Mostly so that it can be plowed into other projects. I've never expected to be able to quit my day job or live a life of luxury from game work. Frankly, if Primordia made a million bucks, I'd probably throw a chunk at the next game and give a big chunk to my local public library.

No. Love needs to tick those boxes that robots are capable of ticking. Yes. Love is irrational, but so are robots. Now that I think of it, Memento Moribuilt probably qualifies. Descriptive. Unfortunately, yes. That's called fictional evidence. Fiction does not draw from an even remotely realistic probability distribution. So characters in fiction are much more likely to be romantically involved because that's what the screenwriter is much more likely to have written, and characters who are written as friends are more likely to be perceived as lovers because that's what the audience expects to see. This is why Primordia was statistically unlikely to be awesome - robots tend to be either a rule of cool artistic choice (kid stuff) or a vehicle for meatsack propaganda. Instead, by using robots, it makes the player do a waitwhat, abstain from kneejerk reactions are reevaluate the evidence independently.

So you don't just keep up to date with sociological literature for fun, do you? Are you a researcher somewhere in this very large field?

No, just a side benefit of being a certified diffusion pump cleaner.

And further down the rabbit hole we go :)

I ask because I finally was able to interpret a feeling I had while reading your above responses and sources. It took me back to my time in university when I had to read a lot of sociology literature for some reason; my degree had nothing to do with social sciences. I can read most papers and generally understand them as well as any lay person, but sociology papers completely mystified me. I could read a sentence and understand each word, but have no idea what was just said. It's like they have a language unto themselves. Comments? Thoughts? Cleaning tips?